I'm wondering, because nobody is talking about the quad-core and the real quad-core. Intc is building two dual-cores in one package and names it quad-core. Amd could have done it at the same time as intc. But AMD had to build from the beginning 4 cores on one piece of silicon, a real quad-core, and this is much more difficult. Remember the times when intc did shout into the world, we are the first with a dual-core. But they simply put together two single-core in one package where Amd came out a little bit later with two cores on one silicon, the real dual-core. No question, AMD has the better design. The other question is, how stupid are consumers and investors? AMD should count more on stupid ones!
Are you really as stupid as you sound? If you can combine two dual cores to be faster than a single quad core you have better yields, less complexity, and less cost at higher performance. Do you think anyone cares that it is on two pieces of silicon instead of one? LMFAO!
AMD would have needed to redesign the opteron / athlon because of the onboard memory controller to do this so they chose to go the one die approach instead thinking they could pull it off. In retrospect I'm sure they wish they would / could have done otherwise.
Responds to his own posts... No way there can be two equally stupid posters on the same thread unless they are the same person.
Why buy a defective tri-core when you can get a quad core from Intel for a few dollars more?
AMD will need to blow these 283mm2 monsters out below cost to sell any of them. The only reason they are doing it is that they are desperate and some dollars are better than zero dollars. It will not be enough.